DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cormier v. Douet, 54 So. 2d 177.

19 citing documents.

  • Roy R. Broussard Lumber Yard v. Wilson 560 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Savoie v. Estate of Rogers 442 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Green v. Provencal Tie Mill 411 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In applying this rule of appellate review to the present article, the Supreme Court in Samuels v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., supra, , (1951): “Since the requirement of Article 2277 R.C.C.
  • Savoie v. Estate of Rogers 410 So. 2d 683 La. 1982
  • Continental Casualty Co. v. Professional Trim & Upholstery, Inc. 398 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1951), the court applied Article 2277 to a contract of deposit.
  • Robert J. Naquin & Associates, Inc. v. Portage Plantation, Inc. 394 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: “Since the requirement of Article 2277 R.C.C.
  • Samuels v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. 342 So. 2d 661 La. 1977
    (1951); Olympic Electric Service, Inc. v. Craig, La.App., (1973); King v. Jarvis, La.App., (1962); Pino v. Bennett, La.App., (1961); and cases cited therein.
  • Aydell v. FONTAINE ABBOTT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. 274 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    at page 919, , at page 178 (1951): "Since the requirement of Article 2277 R.C.C.
  • Ory v. Griffin 162 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Therefore, there was the testimony of one qualified witness, , , but in addition thereto there were corroborating cir- *102 cumslances which were sufficient -to warrant judgment.
  • King v. Jarvis 144 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
  • Le Blanc v. Falgout 144 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Pino v. Bennett 126 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    we desire to approach the problem keeping in mind the following language appearing in Cormier v. Douet, et al., , , which we deem peculiarly appropos to the case at bar: “Since the requirement of Article 2277 R.C.C.
  • Freibert v. Freibert 113 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Cormier v. Douet, 1951, , .
  • Donahue v. McKendrick 111 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    said: “ * * * it should be noted that defendant’s claims are based upon alleged extra work performed in connection with a construction contract, the existence of which contract was freely admitted by plaintiff, and, under this circumstance, we think the account would be removed, in any event, from the limitation of Article 2277.” , , the Supreme Court held that the requirement of one credible witness is met where the plaintiff himself is a credible witness and offers corroborative circumstances.
  • Brown v. Hockenjos 95 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Moore v. Lelong 77 So. 2d 729 La. 1955
    746 , ; , ; Eals v. Swan, 221 La.
  • During v. Thibodeaux 70 So. 2d 882 La. 1954
  • Buxton v. McKendrick 64 So. 2d 844 La. 1953
    295 , ; , ; and Diez v. Diez, 219 La.
  • Nalty v. Nalty 64 So. 2d 216 La. 1953